No absolute bar on grant of anticipatory bail to proclaimed offender: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently observed that there would be no absolute embargo on accused seeking anticipatory bail despite being declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) [Asha Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh].

A Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar was of the view that while considering anticipatory bail of accused, a court has to see relevant factors such as the circumstances of the case, nature of the offence and the background based on which a proclamation under Section 82 of CrPC was issued.

"Coming to the consideration of anticipatory bail, in the event of the declaration under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., it is not as if in all cases that there will be a total embargo on considering the application for the grant of anticipatory bail," the Court observed in its November 12 order.

The Court was hearing a case of dowry death and abetment of suicide against a woman, one Asha Dubey (appellant), for the death of her daughter-in-law.

Dubey's son, the husband of the deceased woman, was already in jail.

The prosecution argued that Dubey was also involved in the acts of harassment along with her son.

She was booked under under Sections 80 (dowry death), 85 (cruelty), 108 (abetment of suicide), 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and was apprehending arrest.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court had denied anticipatory bail to her. Aggrieved, she moved Supreme Court, saying she was not involved in the offence.

The prosecution argued that since the appellant has been declared a proclaimed offender under section 82 CrPC, she cannot claim the benefit of anticipatory bail.

However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument and underscored that a declaration under Section 82 CrPC will not automatically bar consideration of anticipatory bail of an accused.

Taking note of the fact that the investigating authorities had not summoned her for interrogation, the Court held that custodial interrogation of Dubey was unnecessary.

"When the liberty of the appellant is pitted against, this Court will have to see the circumstances of the case, nature of the offence and the background based on which such a proclamation was issued. Suffice it is to state that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail, on the condition that the appellant shall cooperate with the further investigation," the Court observed while proceeding to grant her anticipatory bail.

Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave and advocates Megha Karnwal, Lalit Rajput, Aditya Thorat and Nakul Chengappa appeared for the accused.

Senior Advocate Karuna Nundy and advocates Ruchira Goel, Rishika Rishabh and Kanishka Gautam appeared for the informant.

Additional Advocate(s) General Nachiketa Joshi and DS Parmar appeared for the State of Madhya Pradesh.

[Read Order]